Euro 3 + UN Trying to Repeat Their NK Success In Iran

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Annie, Mar 25, 2005.

  1. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Hey in the past couple days NK has said they have more nukes, so I guess that's one measure of success...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/24/international/europe/24iran.html?pagewanted=print&position=

     
  2. onedomino
    Offline

    onedomino SCE to AUX

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Thanks Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +476
    The E3, Russia, and the IAEA are trying to forestall an American or Israeli attack on Mullah nuclear facilities. Now that Bush has offered a few carrots, such as Iranian entry into the WTO, the E3 apparently have agreed to refer the matter to the UNSC if (when) negotiation (appeasement) fails. The point is moot. Referring the matter to the UNSC for action is not a serious alternative course of action and the Europeans know it. It would only be effective to refer the matter to the UNSC for paralysis. The Mullahs know that they can defy the UNSC and never risk physical attack. What if trade sanctions are put into effect by the UNSC? In that unlikely the event, it will not be Mullahs suffering shortages; it will be ordinary Iranians. America should privately let the Mullahs know that not only their nuke facilities are at risk. The Mullahs need to know that if we are forced to attack nuke bomb making facilities in Iran, then America will specifically hunt them, by name. If the Mullahs do not cease their relentless effort to obtain nuclear weapons, then they must understand that spider-holes are in their future.
     
  3. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770

    I agree. Iran must understand the seriousness of this. At the same time we are having a bit of troop strength problem.
     
  4. onedomino
    Offline

    onedomino SCE to AUX

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Thanks Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +476
    America has many military options short of all out invasion. The Mullahs could personally suffer from air and/or special operations attacks. Not the least interesting option is an American armed Kurdish insurgency from northwestern Iran.
     
  5. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I think the nuke sites must go, that would be from the air, but we can't leave it there...
     
  6. Merlin1047
    Offline

    Merlin1047 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    3,500
    Thanks Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AL
    Ratings:
    +450
    Looking at this from a non-American view, the situation begs the question - Who died and left the USA in charge of determining which of the world's countries are allowed to have nuclear facilities or weapons and which are not?

    Granted, this situation is not in our best interest, but who are we to arbitrarily decided that Iran is not allowed to dabble in nukes so long as they have not made some sort of direct threat?
     
  7. onedomino
    Offline

    onedomino SCE to AUX

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Thanks Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +476
    Iran signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Amid the Mullah proclamations of death to America and Israel, it is intolerable that Iran possess nuclear weapons. Beyond the threat that the Mullahs may give nuke weapons to their terrorist minions, they are racing to advance their current NK, Ukrainian, and Russian missile technology to ICBM standards. Then all our actions would be at the point of an atomic Mullah gun. Further, even with their current missile technology, nuke armed Mullahs would threaten American forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf. That cannot be permitted. The most fundamental human instinct drives American desire to prevent the Mullahs from possessing nuclear weapons: self-preservation.
     
  8. freeandfun1
    Offline

    freeandfun1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,201
    Thanks Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +296
    But Iran has made direct threats. They are very open about their desired destruction of Israel. Do you think they would not use nukes on Israel if they had them? I will try to find the quote, but a while back one of the leaders of Iran was quoted as saying that (I paraphrase) in a nuclear exchange with Israel, Iran would lose, maybe, 4 million people. So what? They are a country of more than 70 million. However, Israel would be totally destroyed. He felt that the sacrafices of a few million Iranians would be worth the destruction of Israel.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. onedomino
    Offline

    onedomino SCE to AUX

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Thanks Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +476
    From the London Times. True? Probably.

     
  10. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    This has been around for a couple months now, but I think the timing is getting closer. I've been seeing this type of statement more and more.
     

Share This Page